I recently received a one dollar bill in a transaction at a local store and was surprised to see the words "TAXCHEAT" in red ink over the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner. He was appointed to the position in 2009 and left in 2013. The current Secretary is Jacob Lew. I did remember that Geithner had some difficulty answering the Senate's questions during confirmation, mostly about having missed various taxes that he owed. My recollection is that he paid the back taxes and somehow convinced the Senators that he made honest mistakes. I wonder if some members of the Senate also made "mistakes" as well and gave him a pass. But this post is not about the tax issue or Timothy Geithner. It is about stamping words on the currency.The fact that someone is selling the stamps on the net is certainly free enterprise. But, actually using the stamp is a lot less clear to me. We have two conflicting trends meeting at a crossroad. The first is that we have rights under the first amendment to free speech; the second is that we are a nation of laws that govern behavior. So, stamping TAX CHEAT on the bill may be an exercise in free speech, but it is also defacing currency which is against the law. Or, is it? Here is the relevant statute pertaining to the defacing issue:“Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”The interesting conundrum here is in the words "disfigures" and "unfit to be reissued". Clearly, the stamp is disfiguring, but is the intent to make it unfit to be reissued? It seems that any prosecution would require an intent to both deface and cause the bill to be unfit. It is perhaps a question that can not be answered easily and would require litigation to make the final decision. From this simple dollar, it is clear that we have always pushed the boundaries of our rights and responsibilities, and that we will continue to do so. It is a good trend! Now, how do we get the major corporations that are evading taxes with offshore ownership to pay their fair share?